alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SCOTT LEVINE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D15-3130

BONNIE STIMMEL,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 14, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge.

Christopher V. Carlyle, and John N. 

Bogdanoff, of the Carlyle Appellate Law 

Firm, The Villages, for Appellant.

Alexander S. Douglas, II, and Robert 

Clayton Roesch, of Shuffield, Lowman & 

Wilson, P.A, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the arguments raised by the parties and the record 

before the court. We commend the trial court for preparing a thorough, thoughtful final 

judgment that includes a detailed review of the evidence, findings of fact, discussion of 

witness credibility, and conclusions of law. The trial court’s findings are supported by 
2

competent substantial evidence, and we find no legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

final judgment. 

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Lance Boxer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. By:
    
    /s/ Lance BoxerLance BoxerChief Executive OfficerDecember 23, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to IPC Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by IPC Acquisition Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C_2020054EN.01005002.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/50

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-317/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Active substance ethoprophos - Conditions for approval for placing the substance on the market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)

(2020/C 54/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla-Contreras and I. Naglis, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 62, p. 7).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### Vance Moore et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, Respondents, v Fulton Housing Authority et al., Appellants.

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We modify to provide that unless plaintiffs add a current tenant within 30 days of entry of the order herein, the first cause of action (declaratory judgment) and the second cause of action (mandamus) will be dismissed, since plaintiffs, *994who are no longer tenants of Pathfinder Courts, lack standing *(see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 713-714). The "bad-faith” language in plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action must be stricken, leaving intact the cause of action for breach of contract. Although plaintiffs allege that the "bad-faith” language was their way of asserting entitlement to punitive damages, plaintiffs’ allegations do not rise to the level of bad faith required for recovery of punitive damages *(see, Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co.,*48 NY2d 906, 907, *rearg denied*49 NY2d 801). Plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action, alleging malicious prosecution, must be dismissed, as plaintiffs have not alleged resort to a provisional remedy which interfered with person or property *(see, Lincoln First Bank v Siegel,*60 AD2d 270, 280-281). Plaintiffs’ tenth cause of action, alleging infliction of mental duress, must be dismissed. It appears that plaintiffs are attempting to allege intentional infliction of emotional distress, and we find that plaintiffs’ allegations do not rise to the necessary level of extreme and outrageous conduct *(see, Freihofer v Hearst Corp.,*65 NY2d 135, 143). Plaintiffs’ eleventh cause of action, alleging breach of a fiduciary duty, is dismissed with leave to replead, as plaintiffs have not met the specificity requirements of CPLR 3016 (b) in pleading this cause of action. We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, McLaughlin, J.— dismiss causes of action.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
# C_2019413EN.01002701.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 September 2019 — mk advokaten GbR v MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR

(Case C-684/19)

(2019/C 413/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: mk advokaten GbR

Respondent: MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR

Question referred

Does a third party referred to in an entry published on a website that contains a sign identical to a trade mark ‘use’ that trade mark, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC, (1) if the entry was not placed there by the third party itself, but was taken by the website’s operator from another entry that the third party had placed in infringement of the trade mark?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

---
# C_2019399EN.01005801.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/58

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD)

(Case T-34/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 399/71)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Orkla Foods Danmark A/S (Taastrup, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2018 (Case R 309/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Orkla Foods Danmark A/S to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Orkla Foods Danmark A/S to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
(26 App. Div. 606.)

#### GERDAU v. FABER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 11, 1898.)

1. Pleading—Amendment.

In an action brought to enforce a liability for the indebtedness of a corporation against the defendant- as a director, because of the failure of the corporation to file an annual report, a motion was made for leave to serve an -amended answer setting up the statute of limitations. *Held,*that the motion should be granted, and that any question as to the merits of the defense should be raised at the trial, so that either party might take an exception, and be able to review the action of the court upon appeal.

3. Same—Laches.

The case had been at issue for some time before the motion was made, and it was opposed on the ground of laches. It appeared that there had been an attempt upon the part of the board of directors to comply with the statute, and that defendant’s liability, if any, arose from want of compliance with its formal requirements. *Held*that, as the action was penal in its nature, the defendant, if he had any defense, should be allowed to introduce it.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Otto Gerdau against Eberhard Faber. From an order •denying defendant’s motion for leave to serve amended answer, he appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, McLAUGHLIN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Francis Forbes, for appellant.

Marshall B. Clarke, for respondent.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

This action was brought to enforce a liability for the indebtedness of a corporation against the defendant as director because of the failure of the corporation to file an annual report. The ■case was at issue for some time, and a motion was made for leave to .serve an amended answer setting up the statute of limitations. This *184motion was resisted upon the ground of laches, and also because such statute would be no defense. Upon this appeal we do not think we should pass upon the question of the merits of the defense. Whatever question there may be in that respect should be raised upon the trial, so that either party may take an exception, and be able to review the action of the court upon appeal. As to the question of laches, it does not seem to us that the motion should have been denied upon that ground. There had been an attempt upon the part of the board of directors to comply with the statute. The defendant’s liability, if any, arises because of a want of compliance with the formal requirements of the statute, and, although the defendant may not have made his motion at the earliest opportunity, still, the action being penal in its nature, if he has any defense, he ought to be allowed to introduce it.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the motion granted, upon payment by the defendant of the costs of the action up to the time of the making of the motion, and upon his stipulating to allow the plaintiff to discontinue the action without costs, in case he should be so advised. Ah concur.
Form of Common Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.1 
 (Front) 
 No.        

             Shares 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
 FIRST COMMUNITY BANK CORPORATION OF AMERICA 
 Authorized 20,000,000 shares of Common
Stock 
 This certifies that
                             is the owner of
                             fully paid and nonassessible shares of the Common Stock, par value $0.05
per share of First Community Bank Corporation of America, transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until
counter- signed by the Transfer Agent and registered by the registrar. 
 In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate
to be signed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers, and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed. 
 DATED: 

							
	[SEAL]	  	  
	  		  	  

		  	Kay M. McAleer, Secretary	  		  	Kenneth P. Cherven, President

  
 (Back)

 The Corporation will furnish without charge to any shareholder, upon request, a full statement of the designations,
preferences, limitations, and relative rights of the shares of each class or series of stock authorized to be issued by the Corporation. Such request may be made to the Secretary of the Corporation at its principal office or to the Transfer Agent
named on the face of the certificate. 
 For Value Received, do hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
                             Shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do
hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint                      Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named
Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
 Dated
            , 20     
 In the presence of
                     
 Notice: The
signature of this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate, in every particular, without alteration, or any change whatever.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated February 4, 2005, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of TB Wood's
Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements
of TB Wood's Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-87936, effective May 9, 2002,
File No. 333-31785 and 333-31787, effective July 22, 1997 and File No. 33-07231,
effective June 28, 1996).

Grant Thornton LLP



Baltimore, Maryland
March 22, 2005
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT P. DELISIO,

Appellant,

v.

ESTATE OF ROBERT L. DELISIO, as beneficiary

and the putative Personal Representative,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1207

[May 16, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-CP001897-XXXX-SB.

Brian Christopher Valentine and Rae Lynn Mosier of The Law Office of 

Mosier Valentine, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Gary A. Woodfield and Terry E. Resk of Nason, Yeager, Gerson, Harris 

& Fumero, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 3626

- 18T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, by the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

0.232 ACRES OF LAND IN THE BOROUGH OF POINT PLEASANT BEACH, OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY; DEN N IS LAPLANTE and CATHERINE LAPLANTE, husband and wife, fee owners,

De fendants

- Respondents,

and

M&T BANK CORPORATION (as successor to HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK), mortgagee; U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, mortgagee,

Defendants.

Argued November 30, 2020

– Decided

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.

Decem ber 1 4 , 20202 A

- 3626

- 18T1 Before Judges Fasciale and Susswein.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L

- 0 444

- 16.

Brian W. Keatts argued the cause for appellant (Rutter & Roy, LLP, attorneys; Brian W. Keatts and Heather N. Oehlmann, on the brief s ).

John H. Buonocore, Jr. argued the cause for respondents Dennis and Catherine LaPlante (McKirdy, Riskin, Olson & DellaPelle, PC, attorneys; John H. Buonocore, Jr.

, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this condemnation case, plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after

a jury trial awarding prope rty owners, Denis and Catherine LaPlante

(collectively defendants), $330,000 for an easement on their shorefront

property, which the State had taken for purposes of constructing a protective

sand dune.

On Saturday, November 28, 2020, the parties settled t heir dispute and

notified the court in writing. On November 30, 2020

— at oral argument before

us

— counsel reiterated that the case settled and that the pending appeal has been

withdrawn with prejudice. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice

and without costs.
Order filed December 28, 2018

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01084-CV

____________

In the Interest of A.M.T., a child

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-05757J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination case.

The notice of appeal was filed November 15, 2018. Appellant has established 

indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The reporter’s 

record was due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). The record has not been filed.

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be 

brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. 

See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible 
for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). 

The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the 

preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, if 

necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). 

Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely in this accelerated 

appeal, we issue the following order:

We order Rachel Gamez, the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal 

on or before January 7, 2019. If Rachel Gamez does not timely file the record as 

ordered, the court will issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show 

cause why the record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in 

contempt of court for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is 

punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM
NO. 07-04-0581-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	DECEMBER 21, 2004

	______________________________

	REMUDA RANCH, et al.

	v.

	ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO., et al. 

	v.

	AGRIFARM INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., et al.			 						

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY;

	NO. 4090-H; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ORDER

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Pending before the court is the application of Remuda Ranch, a partnership of Thompson Agriplex 1, a trust, Thompson Agriplex 2, a trust, Thompson Agriplex 3, a trust, Thompson Agriplex 4, a trust, and Bruce Thompson (Remuda) for interlocutory appeal under §51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  Having reviewed the application, the accompanying appendix, and the pertinent statutory provisions, we exercise our discretion to deny the application.

							Per Curiam
# C_2019295EN.01000302.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/3

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2019 by UC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-572/17, UC v Parliament

(Case C-196/19 P)

(2019/C 295/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: UC (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 23 July 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
Exhibit 31.1




CERTIFICATION







I, Joseph W. Kiley III, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Imperial Capital Bancorp, Inc.;





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15-(f)) for the registrant
and have:




a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;




b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;




c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of our annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.







Date: October 19, 2009





/s/ Joseph W. Kiley III


Joseph W. Kiley III


President and Chief Executive Officer